Accidental discharge is still a crime. He should have been guilty of manslaughter at the very least and he admitted enough to prove those charges.

Nope. He could never be found guilty, because - gun!

Do you really think that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions, good or bad? Did you forget, "You didn't build that?" Or, "Don't condemn the gang bangers. It's the availability of guns?"

Cultural rot, pandering to animals for power. That, and we don't need no stinking boundaries!

"Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." With regularity, in households where you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, young children know and understand the meaning of that phrase.

Last edited by flysideways on Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

So the only reason that "smart people" are not free to eradicate "dumb people" is because hitting first is wrong?

wswartzendruber wrote:

If I had done this in Idaho I'd be gone for life.

He was: hers.

What I want to know is: why is "assault with a semi-automatic weapon" a distinct infraction? Given the lack of specification that it was a projectile weapon, would a baseball bat qualify? Do they have separate laws and/or regulations against fully automatic weapons? What about bolt, lever, slide, and break action weapons? Bows? If so, are compound, recurve, and english longbows classed discretely? What about crossbows? Slingshots? Classical slings?

Slingshots are actually a loophole. So you could use those. _________________"History began on July 4,1776. Everything before that was a mistake." -Ron Swanson

Seems like a strange response. SF tried to convict the guy of murder, they just failed to achieve their goal. That is not a reason to boycott. If the boycott is just over SF being a sanctuary city, there are plenty of those throughout the country. Why just pick SF?

Officials released Martinez in accordance with a 1987 Oregon law that prevented law enforcement from keeping people in custody who entered the U.S. illegally but did not break any other laws. Oregon became the nation’s first “sanctuary state” after the law passed.

_________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

Seems like a strange response. SF tried to convict the guy of murder, they just failed to achieve their goal.

San Francisco let him go instead of giving him to ICE, and the result of which is a dead woman and a grieving family. San Francisco has its head so far up its own smug ass that people are dying from their virtue signaling._________________People Of Love

Seems like a strange response. SF tried to convict the guy of murder, they just failed to achieve their goal.

San Francisco let him go instead of giving him to ICE, and the result of which is a dead woman and a grieving family. San Francisco has its head so far up its own smug ass that people are dying from their virtue signaling.

For better or for worse, that is the policy of a sanctuary city. Any sanctuary city would do the same. So why protest SF? Only because the policy happened to have a bad outcome in this specific case?

If someone cuts you off in traffic, you might curse at them. If they murder a family member, you might react with more than a curse._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

Follow his logic and his data: the dumber people are, the more likely a democracy is to fail, people from Africa and Mexico (at least) are below the democracy failure intelligence threshold, those same people are immigrating to western democracies, thereby dooming the democracies to failure. Does that not follow the model of invasion and conquest, and as such constitute, by his accounting, a de facto state of war? One in which, again by his stated case is essentially, "stupid" people are invading and will wipe out "smarter" western cultures?

1. A military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.

3. That which is conquered; possession gained by force, physical or moral.

Quote:

4. (feudal law) The acquiring of property by other means than by inheritance; acquisition.

pjp wrote:

Typically I believe most would interpret that to mean an organized and intentional effort. "Brain drain" migrations to improve one's lot in life wouldn't likely be considered such an act of war. Neither could someone who came after being "invited" to immigrate.

How "most would interpret" something is not necessarily relevant to how one specific individual interprets that thing. Especially in a case such as this where we have a rather lengthy statement by that individual in which they lay out their interpretation of that thing.

pjp wrote:

desultory wrote:

He avoids making any case regarding:

cultural centricity in IQ testing, which is his standard of intelligence.

even theoretically undertaking any efforts whatsoever to improve average IQ scores in the "stupid" areas.

how such intelligent people as he admits exist in such "stupid" areas manage to manifest, aside from making a prolonged appeal to reversion to average.

It was less than an hour long. I don't believe it was ever intended to be The Bible on the subject.

Interesting choice of reference, considering that he was appealing to the chosen "smart" people (who happen to be "white" men, as he is), to support the government (which he incidentally, at least indirectly, claims is morally wrong by its nature), to keep the more numerous "stupid" brown people at bay. As such, he presents a tale of defending the promised land from those who seek to take it away from the chosen people, ring any bells?

Further, while he did not so much as mention any of the points that I had noted (and I certainly left other things out as well); but he did take the time to point out that "smart" brown people tend to make "stupid" kids, so even doing the morally wrong thing and taking in the "smart" brown people from the "stupid" regions would only leave you with having taken in more "stupid" brown people once they had a generation to breed the "smart" out (while, as he takes the time to point out, reducing the intelligence available in the "stupid" region). Sure, regression toward the mean is a commonly known thing, but that he takes the time to point that out at length without so much as passing mention of any, even hypothetical or fanciful, way to integrate brown people without aggregate loss of intelligence as a population and resultant fall into unrecoverable liberalism is telling regarding his intended narrative.

pjp wrote:

He is neither the first to reference such information, and as far as I know, neither is he the author of studies on the subject.

Mere repetition does not strengthen a claim with regard to objective assessment. Though it does have certain political implications which I will, at least for the moment, avoid mention of so as to not yet invoke Godwin's Law.

pjp wrote:

desultory wrote:

He further claims that he seeks a post-state world in which people are free to act as they will.

I agree with your statement. Free to act as they will, without "hitting" someone.

First, mind you, unless his position that the government should exist to simply to defend the otherwise indefensible stateless (spot the innate contradiction) libertarian utopia (again, all by his stated reasoning), should be taken as implying that he is opposed to the use of force at any time and by anyone, for any reason... except for keeping out the unenlightenable brown people who will ruin everything. Women are apparently a risk which must be taken until their suffrage can be revoked.

pjp wrote:

desultory wrote:

As such, he is essentially making the same false utopian claims as "antifa", only his hated class is designated "stupid" people instead of designated "fascists" and his chosen "end state" is anarchy as opposed to marxism (though, to be fair, there are plenty of anarchists aligned with "antifa").

I don't at all agree with your conclusion. Is it utopian simply because it something very different from what we've ever seen?

Stateless personal libertarian anarchy is historically, and one could reasonably argue logically, unsustainable over a long term in anything resembling a dense population.

pjp wrote:

Antifa and communists in no way want people to be free. On the other hand, free stuff isn't sustainable.

My comparison was in regard to their rhetoric. Though given that both seek the collapse of the current system and replacement with an unsustainable alternative and that unstable forms of governance tend to collapse, which tends to lead to dictatorship of one stripe or another, the comparison seems fair.

"The Bible?" Not really interesting unless you're projecting something. Search Amazon and you'll find that it is a term used across many subjects to mean "definitive guide." I would have thought you'd at least be familiar with the many tech books using it in their titles.

desultory wrote:

Further, while he did not so much as mention any of the points that I had noted

Right. I covered that. It was what, not quite 50 minutes?

desultory wrote:

Mere repetition does not strengthen a claim with regard to objective assessment.

Who said it did? Dismissing a claim isn't an objective assessment, nor does it weaken a claim.

Ultimately it is the relevant research which matters. As I'm anticipating that to be a very large effort, I haven't yet begun to gather a list of source material. And as I'm not an expert in the field, I'm not going to try and process raw research data. If research supports the claims, then you won't have to worry about invoking Godwin's Law. Besides, isn't that only applicable when not actually relevant to a discussion? Seems easy to avoid.

I think what you heard him say and what I heard him say are not the same.

If you'd like him to clarify or expand on something, he might be willing, I have no idea. But you'll have to ask him._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

I also acknowledge that they sometimes result in negative consequences. This case is clearly an example of one. I support sanctuary cities because I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, not because I think there are no negatives.

I also acknowledge that they sometimes result in negative consequences. This case is clearly an example of one. I support sanctuary cities because I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, not because I think there are no negatives.

Indeed, embrace illegal criminal aliens who show 0 respect for your laws, and just shit all over the citizens._________________People Of Love

I also acknowledge that they sometimes result in negative consequences. This case is clearly an example of one. I support sanctuary cities because I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, not because I think there are no negatives.

So this girl being murdered is just an unfortunate incident and part of the price we have to pay? I'm curious, why do you obey the laws of society/your country/state?

I also acknowledge that they sometimes result in negative consequences. This case is clearly an example of one. I support sanctuary cities because I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, not because I think there are no negatives.

So this girl being murdered is just an unfortunate incident and part of the price we have to pay?

I don't know about "just", but otherwise, yes. All policies have negative consequences, in addition to their positive intended consequences. We judge them on the balance, not on any particular event. If a police officer accidentally shoots an innocent man, do you declare that we should no longer have police? If a solider is killed by friendly fire, do you declare that we should no longer have an army?

Quote:

I'm curious, why do you obey the laws of society/your country/state?

To the extent that I obey laws, it is because my personal ethics align with the state laws.

"The Bible?" Not really interesting unless you're projecting something. Search Amazon and you'll find that it is a term used across many subjects to mean "definitive guide." I would have thought you'd at least be familiar with the many tech books using it in their titles.

Typically, when one is referring to a "bible" on a given subject matter it is not capitalized, when one refers to "The Bible" the reference is typically to canonical scriptures of the elder Abrahamic religions. Also, I was making humorously explicit the analogy that you had, evidently unintentionally, drawn,

pjp wrote:

desultory wrote:

Further, while he did not so much as mention any of the points that I had noted

Right. I covered that. It was what, not quite 50 minutes?

You responded to my comment about him not having made a case regarding those issues, that he didn't even bother to mention that there were issues with his argument is all the worse. Considering that his argument, over the course fo the 49 minute video reduces neatly to: "Democrats, on the whole seek to import people from areas where academic performance is depressed relative to Western norms, as people from such areas are more likely to vote for Democrats. Also, they are too stupid to be trusted with a right to vote, and even the smart ones will crank out stupid progeny."
If that took you 48 minutes to read, then I cannot help you, if not, adding "There could be some flaws in my reasoning, but my basic premise is that Democrats favor open borders to our collective detriment, and that is the crux of why I was wrong about nationalism." would probably have still kept it under the magical hour mark, while somewhat reducing the racism as pseudoscience aspect.

pjp wrote:

desultory wrote:

Mere repetition does not strengthen a claim with regard to objective assessment.

Who said it did?

pjp wrote:

He is neither the first to reference such information, and as far as I know, neither is he the author of studies on the subject.

I was merely accepting your statement as a given, if necessary I could probably find reference matter to back your statement.

pjp wrote:

Dismissing a claim isn't an objective assessment, nor does it weaken a claim.

While dismissing a claim is not in itself an objective assessment, it can very much be the result of it.

pjp wrote:

Ultimately it is the relevant research which matters. As I'm anticipating that to be a very large effort, I haven't yet begun to gather a list of source material. And as I'm not an expert in the field, I'm not going to try and process raw research data. If research supports the claims, then you won't have to worry about invoking Godwin's Law. Besides, isn't that only applicable when not actually relevant to a discussion? Seems easy to avoid.

My remark abut Godwin's Law was meant as humorous commentary on your backing of his claims merely based on repetition, given the history of reinforcing claims through mere repetition.

pjp wrote:

I think what you heard him say and what I heard him say are not the same.

Some listen for what they want to hear, some for what the want to avoid, others for what they should know.

pjp wrote:

If you'd like him to clarify or expand on something, he might be willing, I have no idea. But you'll have to ask him.

I have rather little interest in his clarifications at this point, and rather more in your assessment of his positions.

Well, that Democrats are pro-immigration for votes isn't really news, which was why I originally posted the link.

But on the topic of IQ which is what I'm guessing you are primarily asking about, that seems contrary to previous dogma / "settled science" which I've just accepted for no reason other than They Said So. But there are claims of credible research indicating otherwise. I find that curious given the devaluation of science in academia. Is there any chance epigenetics could play a role? Then there is the matter of which IQ tests, given that some claim they are biased. But until I make the time to find some sources, it is nothing more than a curiosity.

Were there any other points you wanted me to address?

Oh, by the way, I looked at quite a few book titles. None used lowercase bible. Maybe I've just seen it as Bible so many times I don't think of it any other way.

I suppose not, though I would suggest that the research might not be as onerous as you imagine.

pjp wrote:

Oh, by the way, I looked at quite a few book titles. None used lowercase bible. Maybe I've just seen it as Bible so many times I don't think of it any other way.

They are books, they follow the canonical rules for capitalizing words in book titles, their existence no more makes "The Bible" seem generic to me than finding cards indicating that the bearer is a genuine pope would indicate to me that "The Pope" is a generic term in its common vernacular usage, though technically it is not necessarily capitalized and is thus perhaps a poor example. Though perhaps this horse has been tenderized enough and should be left to the flies.

I suppose not, though I would suggest that the research might not be as onerous as you imagine.

My presumption is that as a starting point, I wouldn't be able to dismiss the research without trying to identify motives of supporters and detractors. That seems time consuming, though I may try to start sometime this week. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised._________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.

The Mexican immigrant acquitted of murder in the 2015 shooting of Kathryn Steinle on a San Francisco pier was sentenced to time served Friday for weapons possession, but he did not walk out of court a free man.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was taken into custody by U.S. Marshals even though he already served more than two years behind bars while awaiting trial for the Steinle killing.

That's because Garcia Zarate was indicted by a federal grand jury in December on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition and being an “illegally present alien” in possession of the same.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison, and if convicted Garcia Zarate would likely be deported back to Mexico —for the sixth time — after serving his sentence.

_________________It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts.